MADISON, Wis. — State Rep. Jimmy Anderson of Wisconsin is facing an unusual challenge when it comes to visiting his constituents in certain neighborhoods. In order to reach these residents, Anderson must first leave his own district not once, but twice. Starting from his home in Fitchburg, a suburban area of Madison, Anderson must exit his 47th Assembly District, pass through the 77th District, reenter the 47th District, and then head north through the 48th District. Only then can he finally reach the cluster of homes assigned to his district.
This practice of detached districts, where sections of land are assigned to different representatives despite not being connected, has raised concerns about its constitutionality. The Wisconsin Constitution explicitly requires that legislative districts be made up of contiguous territory. However, the current district map resembles Swiss cheese, with small neighborhood holes assigned to different representatives.
As a result, a recent lawsuit has been filed seeking to strike down the current Assembly and Senate districts in Wisconsin. The lawsuit alleges that these districts violate the state constitution’s guarantee of equal protection and free speech, as well as engaging in partisan gerrymandering. Similar cases in other states have had mixed results, but Democrats hope that Wisconsin’s new liberal majority in the Supreme Court will deliver a resounding rejection of gerrymandering practices that have favored Republicans.
Interestingly, the challenge to noncontiguous districts could provide judges with an alternative way to rule on the case without directly addressing partisan gerrymandering. If the lawsuit succeeds, it could set a precedent for redrawing districts before the 2024 election. Kenneth R. Mayer, a political science professor at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, believes that this could give the court a completely neutral basis for deciding that the current maps are flawed.
Currently, Wisconsin’s Assembly districts heavily favor Republicans, allowing them to win more seats than would be expected based on their share of the vote. This has been a recurring issue in redistricting cases across the country, with different parties benefiting from gerrymandering practices. In most states, redistricting is guided by principles such as equal population distribution, compactness, and contiguity. Contiguity, in this case, is understood to mean that all parts of a district are connected, with a few exceptions for islands.
Wisconsin’s use of detached districts is considered “profoundly weird” by experts. Justin Levitt, a professor at Loyola Marymount University Law School, describes it as a unique practice. Anderson’s district, for example, includes more than a dozen remote territories scattered around the Madison area that are disconnected from the main portion of the district. This makes door-to-door canvassing particularly challenging for Anderson, who uses a wheelchair.
Residents, too, find the situation confusing and believe that it hampers community cohesion and representation. Gabrielle Young, one of the residents living in a disconnected area, had no idea that her neighborhood required Anderson to travel through another district to campaign. Young is now a plaintiff in the lawsuit, arguing that the disconnected districts violate the state constitution.
The lawsuit highlights an 1892 case in which the Wisconsin Supreme Court stated that districts “cannot be made up of two or more pieces of detached territory.” However, over time, the practice of creating disconnected districts became more common. According to the lawsuit, 55 out of the 99 Assembly districts and 21 out of the 33 Senate districts in Wisconsin are now composed of disconnected portions.
Republicans, who currently control the Legislature, proposed Assembly and Senate maps with detached districts that were adopted by the Wisconsin Supreme Court last year. Democrats, who control the governor’s office, are now supporting the legal challenge to these maps. Republican Assembly Speaker Robin Vos argues that the districts are constitutional because they are legally contiguous, referencing prior court rulings.
While contiguity requirements have a long history in redistricting, they have not always been explicitly defined. This has left room for interpretation, with criteria such as compactness and equal population distribution needing to be balanced against other principles. Experts believe that allowing mapmakers to draw noncontiguous districts gives them more flexibility to engage in gerrymandering practices.
In Anderson’s case, the detached sections of his district have not significantly impacted the partisan composition of his voters since the majority of Madison-area voters are Democrats. However, redistricting experts warn that there is still potential for politicians to manipulate maps by drawing remote sections of districts.
Overall, the lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of Wisconsin’s detached districts could have significant implications for redistricting practices in the state. If successful, it could prompt the redrawing of districts before the 2024 election, potentially ending the practice of creating disconnected territories.